(11-27-2017 04:19 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  If conservatives can do so much better, please give us some examples of big conservatives cities that have no homeless, no crime, etc. etc.

There are no big conservative run cities that I can think of off hand. Perhaps there are a few. But I guess we'd need to agree how to define big?

Here are the top 50 American cities by population. Are any of these run by conservatives?

New York, N.Y.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Chicago, Ill.
Houston, Tex.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Phoenix, Ariz.
San Antonio, Tex.
San Diego, Calif.
Dallas, Tex.
San Jose, Calif.
Austin, Tex.
Jacksonville, Fla.
San Francisco, Calif.
Indianapolis, Ind.
Columbus, Ohio
Fort Worth, Tex.
Charlotte, N.C.
Detroit, Mich.
El Paso, Tex.
Seattle, Wash.
Denver, Colo.
Washington, DC
Memphis, Tenn.
Boston, Mass.
Nashville TN
Baltimore, Md.
Oklahoma City, Okla.
Portland, Ore.
Las Vegas, Nev.
Louisville KY
Milwaukee, Wis.
Albuquerque, N.M.
Tucson, Ariz.
Fresno, Calif.
Sacramento, Calif.
Long Beach, Calif.
Kansas City, Mo.
Mesa, Ariz.
Atlanta, Ga.
Virginia Beach, Va.
Omaha, Nebr.
Colorado Springs, Colo.
Raleigh, N.C.
Miami, Fla.
Oakland, Calif.
Minneapolis, Minn.
Tulsa, Okla.
Cleveland, Ohio
Wichita, Kans.
New Orleans, La.

What I can tell you is that a lot of these cities have been, and continue to be, dominated by liberal politicians and have been, in some cases, for over a century.

That doesn't prove that liberal policies are the cause of the problems that big cities have.

Large cities have these problem because of their size. It has nothing to do with politics.

(11-27-2017 04:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:19 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  If conservatives can do so much better, please give us some examples of big conservatives cities that have no homeless, no crime, etc. etc.

There are no big conservative run cities that I can think of off hand. Perhaps there are a few. But I guess we'd need to agree how to define big?

Here are the top 50 American cities by population. Are any of these run by conservatives?

New York, N.Y.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Chicago, Ill.
Houston, Tex.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Phoenix, Ariz.
San Antonio, Tex.
San Diego, Calif.
Dallas, Tex.
San Jose, Calif.
Austin, Tex.
Jacksonville, Fla.
San Francisco, Calif.
Indianapolis, Ind.
Columbus, Ohio
Fort Worth, Tex.
Charlotte, N.C.
Detroit, Mich.
El Paso, Tex.
Seattle, Wash.
Denver, Colo.
Washington, DC
Memphis, Tenn.
Boston, Mass.
Nashville TN
Baltimore, Md.
Oklahoma City, Okla.
Portland, Ore.
Las Vegas, Nev.
Louisville KY
Milwaukee, Wis.
Albuquerque, N.M.
Tucson, Ariz.
Fresno, Calif.
Sacramento, Calif.
Long Beach, Calif.
Kansas City, Mo.
Mesa, Ariz.
Atlanta, Ga.
Virginia Beach, Va.
Omaha, Nebr.
Colorado Springs, Colo.
Raleigh, N.C.
Miami, Fla.
Oakland, Calif.
Minneapolis, Minn.
Tulsa, Okla.
Cleveland, Ohio
Wichita, Kans.
New Orleans, La.

What I can tell you is that a lot of these cities have been, and continue to be, dominated by liberal politicians and have been, in some cases, for over a century.

That doesn't prove that liberal policies are the cause of the problems that big cities have.

Large cities have these problem because of their size. It has nothing to do with politics.

But often the surrounding suburbs are larger and have more population than the city, and they are ran very well.

(11-27-2017 04:11 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 03:48 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 01:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  High property prices combined with stagnant wages drove the middle class out of cities. The high property prices resulted from the fact that our most successful businesses need to retain talent. And that talent base is much more liberal than the population at large.

Its not about liberal policies...its about the ability to afford a home. Even in Houston, wide parts of the central core are becoming completely unaffordable for families.

If anything, the liberal cities have become too successful in attracting high priced talent. Because the conservative areas aren't really competing for those good jobs.

If you have a choice....why live in Stockton when you can live in San Fran? Why live in Montgomery when you can live in Houston?

You don't see a lot of leading companies and industries locating in conservative areas. There's a reason for that. Because if you don't welcome immigrants, LGBT persons, single people, and non-Christians as equals in your communities (and provide them with amenities that they want), the businesses that need their talent won't go there. Now you could argue that the middle class people that are pushed out would simply form their own businesses that leverage their talent, but that hasn't largely happened. Because the middle class doesn't have access to capital like the upper class does. And that is the result of Conservative policies, which continue to concentrate wealth in the 'city class' hands. And Trump's new tax plan...is more of the same. Basically, you want to build a large or leading business...you'll probably be doing it in a city.

And there's another dynamic that might be at work here too. Corporate America tends towards those that have decided to prioritize their careers over family. Part of the middle class move is really just people who have decided to emphasize family over career. They tend to be less successful in the corporate world precisely because they put their families first. The Dems at least try to put some regulation in place to handle that (such as Family leave policies, equal pay for women, etc.) to try to sort that out.

I agree with most of what you wrote except for the LGBT part. All you really need is LG. The rest is irrelevant. The 'BT' is like a pimple on your ass. It gets in the way and is painful. No offense.

Lots of corporations move to and stay in conservative areas. Both in areas with conservative voters and conservative policies like low taxes. There are lots of considerations regarding should a company have office space Downtown Vs. The Burbs.

Oh, there are a few that are in Conservative areas. But lets look at it this way. But generally, large businesses move to more liberal areas and if they're in conservative areas, the influx of talent they require usually turns the city more liberal over time (Plano Texas comes to mind).

Generally the bigger companies are in liberal areas. Sure there are exceptions, but usually those consist of extractive industries. What large companies have moved to a Trump majority voting county recently? By the way, you could look at Plano in Collin County, but then again, the city of Plano is getting rather liberal lately. I'm sure you can come up with one or two.

But lets face facts, a company like Anadarko moved to the Woodlands precisely because they could get some people to drive up from Houston. And extractive/agricultural businesses tend to be more immune to geographic concerns as they come from businesses where you have to be in a certain place...no matter how bad the conditions are. And these are NOT generally in leading industries.

Its the Bartlesville principle. Lots of people won't live there. So eventually Phillips and Conoco moved out to Houston. Even the legacy companies just leave. Minorities won't move there, singles feel isolated, Working women feel put upon, Gays feel unwelcome. And there's probably little to do. There's probably bad transport links, and a lack of an educated workforce.

What Trumpian/Conservative areas have are a lot of service orientated businesses. The process of wealth concentration has made it much easier for them to be gobbled up in consolidation, which tends to concentrate the good paying jobs from even those businesses into more urban areas.

(11-27-2017 04:36 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:19 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  If conservatives can do so much better, please give us some examples of big conservatives cities that have no homeless, no crime, etc. etc.

There are no big conservative run cities that I can think of off hand. Perhaps there are a few. But I guess we'd need to agree how to define big?

Here are the top 50 American cities by population. Are any of these run by conservatives?

New York, N.Y.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Chicago, Ill.
Houston, Tex.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Phoenix, Ariz.
San Antonio, Tex.
San Diego, Calif.
Dallas, Tex.
San Jose, Calif.
Austin, Tex.
Jacksonville, Fla.
San Francisco, Calif.
Indianapolis, Ind.
Columbus, Ohio
Fort Worth, Tex.
Charlotte, N.C.
Detroit, Mich.
El Paso, Tex.
Seattle, Wash.
Denver, Colo.
Washington, DC
Memphis, Tenn.
Boston, Mass.
Nashville TN
Baltimore, Md.
Oklahoma City, Okla.
Portland, Ore.
Las Vegas, Nev.
Louisville KY
Milwaukee, Wis.
Albuquerque, N.M.
Tucson, Ariz.
Fresno, Calif.
Sacramento, Calif.
Long Beach, Calif.
Kansas City, Mo.
Mesa, Ariz.
Atlanta, Ga.
Virginia Beach, Va.
Omaha, Nebr.
Colorado Springs, Colo.
Raleigh, N.C.
Miami, Fla.
Oakland, Calif.
Minneapolis, Minn.
Tulsa, Okla.
Cleveland, Ohio
Wichita, Kans.
New Orleans, La.

What I can tell you is that a lot of these cities have been, and continue to be, dominated by liberal politicians and have been, in some cases, for over a century.

That doesn't prove that liberal policies are the cause of the problems that big cities have.

Large cities have these problem because of their size. It has nothing to do with politics.

But often the surrounding suburbs are larger and have more population than the city, and they are ran very well.

That is likely because those that have the means to move out of the city do. Those people pay more taxes, have more resources to improve their surrounding neighborhoods and schools.

It's much easier to have conservative little towns where there is likely very little economic and social diversity.

(11-27-2017 04:41 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's much easier to have conservative little towns where there is likely very little economic and social diversity.

as well as very little crime

(11-27-2017 04:48 PM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:41 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's much easier to have conservative little towns where there is likely very little economic and social diversity.

as well as very little crime

Yes because the population is middle and upper class.

So you see, the bigger cities aren't the way they are because of liberal policies, it is because the people who can get out do and the one's that can't stay.

(11-27-2017 04:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:11 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 03:48 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 01:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  High property prices combined with stagnant wages drove the middle class out of cities. The high property prices resulted from the fact that our most successful businesses need to retain talent. And that talent base is much more liberal than the population at large.

Its not about liberal policies...its about the ability to afford a home. Even in Houston, wide parts of the central core are becoming completely unaffordable for families.

If anything, the liberal cities have become too successful in attracting high priced talent. Because the conservative areas aren't really competing for those good jobs.

If you have a choice....why live in Stockton when you can live in San Fran? Why live in Montgomery when you can live in Houston?

You don't see a lot of leading companies and industries locating in conservative areas. There's a reason for that. Because if you don't welcome immigrants, LGBT persons, single people, and non-Christians as equals in your communities (and provide them with amenities that they want), the businesses that need their talent won't go there. Now you could argue that the middle class people that are pushed out would simply form their own businesses that leverage their talent, but that hasn't largely happened. Because the middle class doesn't have access to capital like the upper class does. And that is the result of Conservative policies, which continue to concentrate wealth in the 'city class' hands. And Trump's new tax plan...is more of the same. Basically, you want to build a large or leading business...you'll probably be doing it in a city.

And there's another dynamic that might be at work here too. Corporate America tends towards those that have decided to prioritize their careers over family. Part of the middle class move is really just people who have decided to emphasize family over career. They tend to be less successful in the corporate world precisely because they put their families first. The Dems at least try to put some regulation in place to handle that (such as Family leave policies, equal pay for women, etc.) to try to sort that out.

I agree with most of what you wrote except for the LGBT part. All you really need is LG. The rest is irrelevant. The 'BT' is like a pimple on your ass. It gets in the way and is painful. No offense.

Lots of corporations move to and stay in conservative areas. Both in areas with conservative voters and conservative policies like low taxes. There are lots of considerations regarding should a company have office space Downtown Vs. The Burbs.

Oh, there are a few that are in Conservative areas. But lets look at it this way. But generally, large businesses move to more liberal areas and if they're in conservative areas, the influx of talent they require usually turns the city more liberal over time (Plano Texas comes to mind).

Generally the bigger companies are in liberal areas. Sure there are exceptions, but usually those consist of extractive industries. What large companies have moved to a Trump majority voting county recently? By the way, you could look at Plano in Collin County, but then again, the city of Plano is getting rather liberal lately. I'm sure you can come up with one or two.

But lets face facts, a company like Anadarko moved to the Woodlands precisely because they could get some people to drive up from Houston. And extractive/agricultural businesses tend to be more immune to geographic concerns as they come from businesses where you have to be in a certain place...no matter how bad the conditions are. And these are NOT generally in leading industries.

Its the Bartlesville principle. Lots of people won't live there. So eventually Phillips and Conoco moved out to Houston. Even the legacy companies just leave. Minorities won't move there, singles feel isolated, Working women feel put upon, Gays feel unwelcome. And there's probably little to do. There's probably bad transport links, and a lack of an educated workforce.

What Trumpian/Conservative areas have are a lot of service orientated businesses. The process of wealth concentration has made it much easier for them to be gobbled up in consolidation, which tends to concentrate the good paying jobs from even those businesses into more urban areas.

I know what you are trying to say, Talent = young hip creative libs that live in Urban areas, so ABC Corp wants to have office space there. Not all of them are libs and they tend to get more conservative when they get married, have kids and move to the burbs. Talent comes in all shapes, sizes, ethnic groups and political thought.

In most major metro areas the bulk of the wealth is in the burbs, GOP country. Most HQ's are in the Burbs, most large employers in one location or campus are in the Burbs. Also Burb developers are doing the live work play concept all over the USA.

(11-27-2017 04:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:48 PM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:41 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's much easier to have conservative little towns where there is likely very little economic and social diversity.

as well as very little crime

Yes because the population is middle and upper class.

So you see, the bigger cities aren't the way they are because of liberal policies, it is because the people who can get out do and the one's that can't stay.

damn right. people shouldn't be allowed to flee from danger to their families. they should be required to stay right there and die for the good of the liberal policies that caused the carnage in the first place.

damned freedom. damned individual liberty.

(11-27-2017 04:57 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:48 PM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:41 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's much easier to have conservative little towns where there is likely very little economic and social diversity.

as well as very little crime

Yes because the population is middle and upper class.

So you see, the bigger cities aren't the way they are because of liberal policies, it is because the people who can get out do and the one's that can't stay.

damn right. people shouldn't be allowed to flee from danger to their families. they should be required to stay right there and die for the good of the liberal policies that caused the carnage in the first place.

damned freedom. damned individual liberty.

I already said that there is nothing wrong with families moving out of the city for a better life.

My parents did it as soon as they could.

We were lucky.

Some people don't have that luxury.

It has very little to do with politics.

(11-27-2017 05:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:57 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:48 PM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:41 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's much easier to have conservative little towns where there is likely very little economic and social diversity.

as well as very little crime

Yes because the population is middle and upper class.

So you see, the bigger cities aren't the way they are because of liberal policies, it is because the people who can get out do and the one's that can't stay.

damn right. people shouldn't be allowed to flee from danger to their families. they should be required to stay right there and die for the good of the liberal policies that caused the carnage in the first place.

damned freedom. damned individual liberty.

I already said that there is nothing wrong with families moving out of the city for a better life.

My parents did it as soon as they could.

We were lucky.

Some people don't have that luxury.

It has very little to do with politics.

you can't have this both ways. the one necessarily implies the other.

(11-27-2017 04:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Large cities have these problem because of their size. It has nothing to do with politics.

Nothing? Nothing? Politics has nothing to do with the murder rate of Chicago, the water of Flint, or the economic viability of Detroit?

(11-27-2017 05:02 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Large cities have these problem because of their size. It has nothing to do with politics.

Nothing? Nothing? Politics has nothing to do with the murder rate of Chicago, the water of Flint, or the economic viability of Detroit?

Okay maybe not nothing but very little to do with the problems if large cities.

Every large city is going to have crime, traffic, homelessness, drug abuse and poverty regardless of political affiliation.

(11-27-2017 04:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:11 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 03:48 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 01:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  High property prices combined with stagnant wages drove the middle class out of cities. The high property prices resulted from the fact that our most successful businesses need to retain talent. And that talent base is much more liberal than the population at large.

Its not about liberal policies...its about the ability to afford a home. Even in Houston, wide parts of the central core are becoming completely unaffordable for families.

If anything, the liberal cities have become too successful in attracting high priced talent. Because the conservative areas aren't really competing for those good jobs.

If you have a choice....why live in Stockton when you can live in San Fran? Why live in Montgomery when you can live in Houston?

You don't see a lot of leading companies and industries locating in conservative areas. There's a reason for that. Because if you don't welcome immigrants, LGBT persons, single people, and non-Christians as equals in your communities (and provide them with amenities that they want), the businesses that need their talent won't go there. Now you could argue that the middle class people that are pushed out would simply form their own businesses that leverage their talent, but that hasn't largely happened. Because the middle class doesn't have access to capital like the upper class does. And that is the result of Conservative policies, which continue to concentrate wealth in the 'city class' hands. And Trump's new tax plan...is more of the same. Basically, you want to build a large or leading business...you'll probably be doing it in a city.

And there's another dynamic that might be at work here too. Corporate America tends towards those that have decided to prioritize their careers over family. Part of the middle class move is really just people who have decided to emphasize family over career. They tend to be less successful in the corporate world precisely because they put their families first. The Dems at least try to put some regulation in place to handle that (such as Family leave policies, equal pay for women, etc.) to try to sort that out.

I agree with most of what you wrote except for the LGBT part. All you really need is LG. The rest is irrelevant. The 'BT' is like a pimple on your ass. It gets in the way and is painful. No offense.

Lots of corporations move to and stay in conservative areas. Both in areas with conservative voters and conservative policies like low taxes. There are lots of considerations regarding should a company have office space Downtown Vs. The Burbs.

Oh, there are a few that are in Conservative areas. But lets look at it this way. But generally, large businesses move to more liberal areas and if they're in conservative areas, the influx of talent they require usually turns the city more liberal over time (Plano Texas comes to mind).

Generally the bigger companies are in liberal areas. Sure there are exceptions, but usually those consist of extractive industries. What large companies have moved to a Trump majority voting county recently? By the way, you could look at Plano in Collin County, but then again, the city of Plano is getting rather liberal lately. I'm sure you can come up with one or two.

But lets face facts, a company like Anadarko moved to the Woodlands precisely because they could get some people to drive up from Houston. And extractive/agricultural businesses tend to be more immune to geographic concerns as they come from businesses where you have to be in a certain place...no matter how bad the conditions are. And these are NOT generally in leading industries.

Its the Bartlesville principle. Lots of people won't live there. So eventually Phillips and Conoco moved out to Houston. Even the legacy companies just leave. Minorities won't move there, singles feel isolated, Working women feel put upon, Gays feel unwelcome. And there's probably little to do. There's probably bad transport links, and a lack of an educated workforce.

What Trumpian/Conservative areas have are a lot of service orientated businesses. The process of wealth concentration has made it much easier for them to be gobbled up in consolidation, which tends to concentrate the good paying jobs from even those businesses into more urban areas.

More jobs are being created in the suburbs than in the central cities as pointed out in the Kotkin piece I posted.

(11-27-2017 04:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:48 PM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:41 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's much easier to have conservative little towns where there is likely very little economic and social diversity.

as well as very little crime

Yes because the population is middle and upper class.

So you see, the bigger cities aren't the way they are because of liberal policies, it is because the people who can get out do and the one's that can't stay.

So it's not the liberal big city's fault that the leftist policies ran off the middle and upper class and left them with only the people who can't leave?

(11-27-2017 05:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:11 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 03:48 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 01:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  High property prices combined with stagnant wages drove the middle class out of cities. The high property prices resulted from the fact that our most successful businesses need to retain talent. And that talent base is much more liberal than the population at large.

Its not about liberal policies...its about the ability to afford a home. Even in Houston, wide parts of the central core are becoming completely unaffordable for families.

If anything, the liberal cities have become too successful in attracting high priced talent. Because the conservative areas aren't really competing for those good jobs.

If you have a choice....why live in Stockton when you can live in San Fran? Why live in Montgomery when you can live in Houston?

You don't see a lot of leading companies and industries locating in conservative areas. There's a reason for that. Because if you don't welcome immigrants, LGBT persons, single people, and non-Christians as equals in your communities (and provide them with amenities that they want), the businesses that need their talent won't go there. Now you could argue that the middle class people that are pushed out would simply form their own businesses that leverage their talent, but that hasn't largely happened. Because the middle class doesn't have access to capital like the upper class does. And that is the result of Conservative policies, which continue to concentrate wealth in the 'city class' hands. And Trump's new tax plan...is more of the same. Basically, you want to build a large or leading business...you'll probably be doing it in a city.

And there's another dynamic that might be at work here too. Corporate America tends towards those that have decided to prioritize their careers over family. Part of the middle class move is really just people who have decided to emphasize family over career. They tend to be less successful in the corporate world precisely because they put their families first. The Dems at least try to put some regulation in place to handle that (such as Family leave policies, equal pay for women, etc.) to try to sort that out.

I agree with most of what you wrote except for the LGBT part. All you really need is LG. The rest is irrelevant. The 'BT' is like a pimple on your ass. It gets in the way and is painful. No offense.

Lots of corporations move to and stay in conservative areas. Both in areas with conservative voters and conservative policies like low taxes. There are lots of considerations regarding should a company have office space Downtown Vs. The Burbs.

Oh, there are a few that are in Conservative areas. But lets look at it this way. But generally, large businesses move to more liberal areas and if they're in conservative areas, the influx of talent they require usually turns the city more liberal over time (Plano Texas comes to mind).

Generally the bigger companies are in liberal areas. Sure there are exceptions, but usually those consist of extractive industries. What large companies have moved to a Trump majority voting county recently? By the way, you could look at Plano in Collin County, but then again, the city of Plano is getting rather liberal lately. I'm sure you can come up with one or two.

But lets face facts, a company like Anadarko moved to the Woodlands precisely because they could get some people to drive up from Houston. And extractive/agricultural businesses tend to be more immune to geographic concerns as they come from businesses where you have to be in a certain place...no matter how bad the conditions are. And these are NOT generally in leading industries.

Its the Bartlesville principle. Lots of people won't live there. So eventually Phillips and Conoco moved out to Houston. Even the legacy companies just leave. Minorities won't move there, singles feel isolated, Working women feel put upon, Gays feel unwelcome. And there's probably little to do. There's probably bad transport links, and a lack of an educated workforce.

What Trumpian/Conservative areas have are a lot of service orientated businesses. The process of wealth concentration has made it much easier for them to be gobbled up in consolidation, which tends to concentrate the good paying jobs from even those businesses into more urban areas.

More jobs are being created in the suburbs than in the central cities as pointed out in the Kotkin piece I posted.

Maybe so, but what kind of suburbs?
And what kind of jobs?

If the jobs were in the burbs, that would be where the highest demand for housing would be at any given price point. That's not the case.

(11-27-2017 02:03 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 02:00 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Moreover Whites, and others like Asians, young and old are moving into the city hoods and pushing black middle and lower classes out to the older suburban ring. Gentrification all of the USA on large scale has been happening for a long time. I live in a city hood that was 10-12 years ago about 90% black. Now it is about 20% black.

In California the % of the black population has been reduced by almost 50%. Used to be about 12-13% and now it is closer to 6% of the population.

I'm gonna need a name for this one.

I cam give you a few in Charlotte

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

(11-27-2017 06:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 05:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:11 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 03:48 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I agree with most of what you wrote except for the LGBT part. All you really need is LG. The rest is irrelevant. The 'BT' is like a pimple on your ass. It gets in the way and is painful. No offense.

Lots of corporations move to and stay in conservative areas. Both in areas with conservative voters and conservative policies like low taxes. There are lots of considerations regarding should a company have office space Downtown Vs. The Burbs.

Oh, there are a few that are in Conservative areas. But lets look at it this way. But generally, large businesses move to more liberal areas and if they're in conservative areas, the influx of talent they require usually turns the city more liberal over time (Plano Texas comes to mind).

Generally the bigger companies are in liberal areas. Sure there are exceptions, but usually those consist of extractive industries. What large companies have moved to a Trump majority voting county recently? By the way, you could look at Plano in Collin County, but then again, the city of Plano is getting rather liberal lately. I'm sure you can come up with one or two.

But lets face facts, a company like Anadarko moved to the Woodlands precisely because they could get some people to drive up from Houston. And extractive/agricultural businesses tend to be more immune to geographic concerns as they come from businesses where you have to be in a certain place...no matter how bad the conditions are. And these are NOT generally in leading industries.

Its the Bartlesville principle. Lots of people won't live there. So eventually Phillips and Conoco moved out to Houston. Even the legacy companies just leave. Minorities won't move there, singles feel isolated, Working women feel put upon, Gays feel unwelcome. And there's probably little to do. There's probably bad transport links, and a lack of an educated workforce.

What Trumpian/Conservative areas have are a lot of service orientated businesses. The process of wealth concentration has made it much easier for them to be gobbled up in consolidation, which tends to concentrate the good paying jobs from even those businesses into more urban areas.

More jobs are being created in the suburbs than in the central cities as pointed out in the Kotkin piece I posted.

Maybe so, but what kind of suburbs?
And what kind of jobs?

If the jobs were in the burbs, that would be where the highest demand for housing would be at any given price point. That's not the case.

huhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh????

the jobs those have with a clue will always look for the safest haven plausible......

sitting in traffic has become the norm now....

the 'burg did it moons ago......

nothing new.....nothing to care about.....

why?

b/c we don't until your side gets off it's arse......not our fault....

keep driving those numbers up in your favor and watch how SERIOUSLY ugly it becomes....

(11-27-2017 02:00 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Moreover Whites, and others like Asians, young and old are moving into the city hoods and pushing black middle and lower classes out to the older suburban ring. Gentrification all of the USA on large scale has been happening for a long time. I live in a city hood that was 10-12 years ago about 90% black. Now it is about 20% black.

In California the % of the black population has been reduced by almost 50%. Used to be about 12-13% and now it is closer to 6% of the population.

I don't doubt your conclusion, but the halving of the black demographic could also be largely attributed to general population dilution due to the explosion of Hispanics living in California.

One factor to consider when looking at where companies are headquartered has to do with their business model and how they incorporate the young into their workforce. As Peter Zeihan points out, Millennials are the largest generation in American history as a percentage of the population - that means there's a glut of twenty and early thirty-somethings eager to live in big cities with all of the amenities; that also means there's plenty willing to work for companies eager for cheap labor. My employer was based in suburban Chicago but is now in the Loop because they wanted to cut costs and it was impossible to do so unless they dramatically shifted away from Boomers and Gen X'ers, which is very difficult to implement when you force them to commute an hour or live in the burbs. If workers at corporate want to leave as they age and improve their quality of life if they have families, they have to either drive for an hour and/or leave, which opens up more spots for younger workers to come in and feed the management strategy. Local economic policy varies in its potential effect on the company; far left environmental regulations would affect us very little since it's a white collar office, but a city earnings tax (see St. Louis) would a great deal.

(11-27-2017 09:05 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 02:00 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Moreover Whites, and others like Asians, young and old are moving into the city hoods and pushing black middle and lower classes out to the older suburban ring. Gentrification all of the USA on large scale has been happening for a long time. I live in a city hood that was 10-12 years ago about 90% black. Now it is about 20% black.

In California the % of the black population has been reduced by almost 50%. Used to be about 12-13% and now it is closer to 6% of the population.

I don't doubt your conclusion, but the halving of the black demographic could also be largely attributed to general population dilution due to the explosion of Hispanics living in California.

One factor to consider when looking at where companies are headquartered has to do with their business model and how they incorporate the young into their workforce. As Peter Zeihan points out, Millennials are the largest generation in American history as a percentage of the population - that means there's a glut of twenty and early thirty-somethings eager to live in big cities with all of the amenities; that also means there's plenty willing to work for companies eager for cheap labor. My employer was based in suburban Chicago but is now in the Loop because they wanted to cut costs and it was impossible to do so unless they dramatically shifted away from Boomers and Gen X'ers, which is very difficult to implement when you force them to commute an hour or live in the burbs. If workers at corporate want to leave as they age and improve their quality of life if they have families, they have to either drive for an hour and/or leave, which opens up more spots for younger workers to come in and feed the management strategy. Local economic policy varies in its potential effect on the company; far left environmental regulations would affect us very little since it's a white collar office, but a city earnings tax (see St. Louis) would a great deal.

Every single office space transaction is unique based on a wide range of factors.
In the really large cities most employees still have a significant commute. I bet in your office many employees still have a serious commute. They all don't live in the Loop or River North.

You guys are not going to beat me on this, I do this for a living LOL.

While the current development cycle for office space has concentrated heavily on Central Business Districts (CBDs) in places like Chicago, Los Angeles and Seattle, Walter Page, research director at commercial real estate data provider CoStar Group, expects that tide to change as Millennials grow older, have families and migrate to the comforts of suburbia. It’s worth noting that the oldest Millennials are already in their mid-30s.

Marshall says some employers are hiring consultants and commissioning studies to help determine what their workforces will look like in the near future. As a result, office tenants are looking at labor forecasts as a consideration in leasing decisions, alongside rental rates and tenant improvement allowances, he notes.

“Tenants are looking to capture an outsized portion of the labor force when it comes to qualified and skilled labor. Conversely, landlords are looking to capture an outsized amount of those tenants,” Marshall says. “So this is a game of strategy with each other.”

In addition to the Millennial factor, CBRE envisions steep rental rates and strained supply in downtown office submarkets will push more tenants toward suburbia, which has experienced continuous gains in the office market

In many CBD's obsolete office buildings have been converted to residential and hotels. If not for Great American Tower in Cincy there would be less office space than 15 years ago in the CBD. Usually CBD office space is more expensive than burbs.
http://www.nreionline.com/office/do-offi...omplicated

Chicago's population is about 2.7 Million, and more than 7 Million outside of the city in Chicagoland.